SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changi Airport Group published the official timeline:
0649h — Aircraft landed
0651h — Fire fighters arrive
0654h — Fire brought under control
0710h — Passengers disembark
0818h — Aircraft towed to remote parking bay
0820h — Clean-up and repair of runway begins
1059h — Replacement flight (SQ368D) departs
1130h — Runway 2 reopens following inspection
s: todayonline
0649h — Aircraft landed
0651h — Fire fighters arrive
0654h — Fire brought under control
0710h — Passengers disembark
0818h — Aircraft towed to remote parking bay
0820h — Clean-up and repair of runway begins
1059h — Replacement flight (SQ368D) departs
1130h — Runway 2 reopens following inspection
s: todayonline
Changi Airport Group published the official timeline:
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the question of the possible influence of the crews 'culture' has arisen I make the following point; I was a captain with SIA for ten years and it is my belief that there would have been absolutely no delay to an evacuation decision by the Captain unless he was receiving advice from the fire fighters. As a qualified fire fighter said, earlier in this thread, had the doors opened and the slides deployed the foam delivering appliances would have had to back off and leave the fire, which may then have spread to the slides, as it was they were able to knock it down in good time.
@ Chris2303...
There is no evidence of this and none of the videos suggest there was. And there was one why would they keep the LH engine running?
Wasn't there a flow of fuel from right to left?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to express dismay at the comments made by those purporting to be professional pilots. inviting evacuation due to fire into a "discussion" arena is a further example of how Captain's authority has been degraded resulting in some very weak command decisions in our industry in recent years. CRM pundits love all this. That lot would have us use "all available resources" and damn us for not calling Mummy on the HF prior to making decisions.
Way back, in my experience, we stopped making evacuation a discussion item. Captain made the call "Evacuate, evacuate" and informed control. That was it. Cabin crew made the decision as to the use of all , or , selected exits.They were in a far better position to make this judgement. In my last company, cabin crew were also given full authority to order the evacuation if it looked necessary and no call by the captain had been made. No, they did not rush up to the Flight Deck & enter into any discussion. Fire, lots of smoke , the latter being the real quick killer............evacuate, evacuate.
All this nonsense about cosy little discussions with Fire Fighters,cabin crew, Tower etc, Good grief............jump & slide people. Oh, & preferably not into a burning engine. The BA incident, recently, much applauded, looked to me as though evacuation was guided straight into the burning side . I might be wrong and apologise if that was not the case.
A different thread describing the disgraceful plight of one of our US Colleagues facing dismissal for ordering an evacuation highlights this trend of undermining Commander's authority. Stop it & we might resist the trend towards appallingly weak command judgements.
Way back, in my experience, we stopped making evacuation a discussion item. Captain made the call "Evacuate, evacuate" and informed control. That was it. Cabin crew made the decision as to the use of all , or , selected exits.They were in a far better position to make this judgement. In my last company, cabin crew were also given full authority to order the evacuation if it looked necessary and no call by the captain had been made. No, they did not rush up to the Flight Deck & enter into any discussion. Fire, lots of smoke , the latter being the real quick killer............evacuate, evacuate.
All this nonsense about cosy little discussions with Fire Fighters,cabin crew, Tower etc, Good grief............jump & slide people. Oh, & preferably not into a burning engine. The BA incident, recently, much applauded, looked to me as though evacuation was guided straight into the burning side . I might be wrong and apologise if that was not the case.
A different thread describing the disgraceful plight of one of our US Colleagues facing dismissal for ordering an evacuation highlights this trend of undermining Commander's authority. Stop it & we might resist the trend towards appallingly weak command judgements.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: requesting fire service support.
If an aircraft requests fuel dump, then landing will be near max weight. Irrespective of cause, there is usually going to be a serious reason for this - technical, medical, etc. So:
If an aircraft requests fuel dump, then landing will be near max weight. Irrespective of cause, there is usually going to be a serious reason for this - technical, medical, etc. So:
- What are the disincentives on a crew where they would decline fire service attendence beyond, I dunno, not wanting to bother them
- What are the disincentives on ATC in respect of "our airport, our call", telling the inbound "we'll have services on hand" for max weight landings. Would it really be a significant imposition at an airport like SIN?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be highly improbable (on the same level as finding the Yeti) for Singapore Airlines to officially comment on this forum. Or for it to discuss in public what they thought of the pilots actions at this time. Or for the pilots to explain themselves in public why they did or didn't do something.
They are holding discussions behind closed doors. The final report will outline any wrong doings if any. And any recommendations , if any.
I think keeping passengers on a burning aircraft is a wrong move. Engine and wing on fire? EVAC makes sense.
They are holding discussions behind closed doors. The final report will outline any wrong doings if any. And any recommendations , if any.
I think keeping passengers on a burning aircraft is a wrong move. Engine and wing on fire? EVAC makes sense.
Last edited by armchairpilot94116; 8th Jul 2016 at 19:57.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Culture is culture
Okay, I was not intending to start a cultural debate... Just commenting on what I see around me
I have lived in SEA for 16 years, and my partner is an Indonesian Muslim. No one can call me racist...
But anyone who thinks that culture doesn't play a role in the cockpit is sadly mistaken. From KLM in Tenerife, to Korean airlines shot down in china....
So CRM is old hat now... But just think for a second how CRM is influenced by culture.
Been in Singapore 5 years... Not 5 days....
I have lived in SEA for 16 years, and my partner is an Indonesian Muslim. No one can call me racist...
But anyone who thinks that culture doesn't play a role in the cockpit is sadly mistaken. From KLM in Tenerife, to Korean airlines shot down in china....
So CRM is old hat now... But just think for a second how CRM is influenced by culture.
Been in Singapore 5 years... Not 5 days....
Dammit Jabawocky,
That is a superb video. Unbelievably shocking. And yes, the most shocking part is the absence of an evacuation command.
Where is SQ with a comment on this incident? I certainly don't expect the local journo's in Singapore to dare ask some difficult questions regarding this.
That is a superb video. Unbelievably shocking. And yes, the most shocking part is the absence of an evacuation command.
Where is SQ with a comment on this incident? I certainly don't expect the local journo's in Singapore to dare ask some difficult questions regarding this.
On the other hand personally I don't need an explanation from them. One more Airline on my personal 'Avoid' list. Bit of a shame but in situations like these the true nature comes through.
No one will ever know how close that wing tanks came to exploding. And it will always remain a mystery how any one here can assume the guys on the flight deck had any information that gave them a clear indication there was no risk for overpressure and explosive rupture of the wing tanks. Had the latter occurred we would have had>200 bodies charred beyond recognition. Taking this gamble in order to avoid some minor scratches from evacuating... Unbelievable.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that there are a lot of posters who would have applauded a decision to evacuate and send a dozen or so pax to the hospital but find a problem with a decision to not evacuate presumably on the advice of the airport fire crew, which resulted in no injured pax. This actually was the right decision in hindsight probably based on a risk assessment from fire crew experts actually on the scene.
The 'no-brain' automatons would presumably disregard fire crew advice and evacuate anyway. An interesting position to take if pax are subsequently injured in what the experts on the scene felt was an unnecessary use of the slides.
The "right" decision is the one taken at the time after consideration of all the information available and is not dependent on the consequences (intended or otherwise). No amount of 20/20 hindsight has any bearing on that.
The fact that after 500+ posts there is no consensus on what decision would have been "right" demonstrates only that we don't have access to all the available information.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 minutes from wheel stop to passenger disembark. Were they serving pre-landing snack?
Within 4 minutes no living thing should be in that thin metal tube and only fire rescue professionals should be anywhere near that.
This is not a camp fire or barbecue to be safe once you hose it down by professionals.
Let me repeat one more time. Every day professional pilots order evacuations for minor fumes, smoke, tire burst and brake fires. Few pax get injured. So what, it is the right decision. It will be a shame to question them.
Within 4 minutes no living thing should be in that thin metal tube and only fire rescue professionals should be anywhere near that.
This is not a camp fire or barbecue to be safe once you hose it down by professionals.
Let me repeat one more time. Every day professional pilots order evacuations for minor fumes, smoke, tire burst and brake fires. Few pax get injured. So what, it is the right decision. It will be a shame to question them.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Ian W
So what would your response be if the reverse had happened and the cabin had been breached with dense smoke and fire?
Which situation is worse, and how do you avoid the potential for catastrophe with better predictability?
So what would your response be if the reverse had happened and the cabin had been breached with dense smoke and fire?
Which situation is worse, and how do you avoid the potential for catastrophe with better predictability?
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hindsight is a wonderful thing...
From the reports the engine problem was low oil pressure. The decision was made to turn back rather than continue to Milan. The aircraft did not have a major problem and was not on fire until after it landed. I presume you would carry out an immediate diversion with an oil pressure low indication?
It seems that there are a lot of posters who would have applauded a decision to evacuate and send a dozen or so pax to the hospital but find a problem with a decision to not evacuate presumably on the advice of the airport fire crew, which resulted in no injured pax. This actually was the right decision in hindsight probably based on a risk assessment from fire crew experts actually on the scene.
The 'no-brain' automatons would presumably disregard fire crew advice and evacuate anyway. An interesting position to take if pax are subsequently injured in what the experts on the scene felt was an unnecessary use of the slides.
It seems that there are a lot of posters who would have applauded a decision to evacuate and send a dozen or so pax to the hospital but find a problem with a decision to not evacuate presumably on the advice of the airport fire crew, which resulted in no injured pax. This actually was the right decision in hindsight probably based on a risk assessment from fire crew experts actually on the scene.
The 'no-brain' automatons would presumably disregard fire crew advice and evacuate anyway. An interesting position to take if pax are subsequently injured in what the experts on the scene felt was an unnecessary use of the slides.
The captain is in charge, not the fire crew. And the fire crew was one minute out when the wheels stopped. And the right wing and #2 were on fire! After one minute (the plane wasn't full) most pax would have been out. Before the services arrived. At 1.5 mins, they would all have been out.
Meanwhile, at 3 mins (about the time when China Air went boom) the fire is not out and the crew is crossing their fingers!
That's what you call a no brainer.
As for the apparent paradox about Singaporean culture and rote learning (my earlier post). I agree I wasn't clear. The point is, when the situation is outside of their comfort zone, they look to someone else to make a decision. Rabbits frozen in the headlights.
Lastly, a pax evac on LHS would not have diminished the ability to fire fight on the rhs. Oh, and everyone would have been out 30 seconds later anyway.
Really IanW? That's easy to say sitting here now knowing with 20/20 hindsight the Jet didn't go boom.....
At the time sitting there for THREE long minutes it must have been excruciating........just wondering if the RFF could get that big Fire under control, especially knowing there was a safe escape route on the left and at the very worst a few Pax would probably get sprained ankles off the slide......but would live.
They were either very brave or very reckless.........
Big gamble to make with other people's lives. IMHO
At the time sitting there for THREE long minutes it must have been excruciating........just wondering if the RFF could get that big Fire under control, especially knowing there was a safe escape route on the left and at the very worst a few Pax would probably get sprained ankles off the slide......but would live.
They were either very brave or very reckless.........
Big gamble to make with other people's lives. IMHO
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evac or not?
I generally lurk here and say nothing. In this case, I feel compelled tosay that, as a passenger, I would like to trust the captain to make the right decision based on the circumstances at the time.
To my mind, the reason we still have pilots is that computers cannot think. The decision that fire=evac is a binary one and does not need a pilot. If that is the case, why is it not programmed into the myriad of computers on modern aircraft? To answer my own question - simply because there are circumstances that a computer cannot "hear or see or evaluate" that a human can.
The"radio silence" regarding the lack of post-event photographs and information for this particular event has been amazing. It demonstrates the Singaporean Authorities ability to lock down their people and media. It has also left a vacuum of information about what actually happened on the flight deck. Of course, nature (and humans) abhor such a vacuum so this thread has been filled with speculation.
Whether or not the captain should have automatically evacuated the aircraft or not is something we actually don’t know at this time. Many have said fire=evac. They may well be correct, but until we KNOW what information the captain had we cannot be certain whether or not he did the right or wrong thing.
As for me, I have no idea whether or not he did the right thing. The outcome was excellent, but whether or not it was good luck or good judgement we won’t know until the report – probably.
To my mind, the reason we still have pilots is that computers cannot think. The decision that fire=evac is a binary one and does not need a pilot. If that is the case, why is it not programmed into the myriad of computers on modern aircraft? To answer my own question - simply because there are circumstances that a computer cannot "hear or see or evaluate" that a human can.
The"radio silence" regarding the lack of post-event photographs and information for this particular event has been amazing. It demonstrates the Singaporean Authorities ability to lock down their people and media. It has also left a vacuum of information about what actually happened on the flight deck. Of course, nature (and humans) abhor such a vacuum so this thread has been filled with speculation.
Whether or not the captain should have automatically evacuated the aircraft or not is something we actually don’t know at this time. Many have said fire=evac. They may well be correct, but until we KNOW what information the captain had we cannot be certain whether or not he did the right or wrong thing.
As for me, I have no idea whether or not he did the right thing. The outcome was excellent, but whether or not it was good luck or good judgement we won’t know until the report – probably.
Last edited by Minimbah; 10th Jul 2016 at 03:31. Reason: Typo